AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this criminal bail application applicant/accused Muhammad Dildasr son of Muhammad Jahangir Khan seeks confirmation of ad interim pre arrest bail granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 28/10/2016, hence same ripe up for confirmation or otherwise. The applicant/accused has been booked in FIR bearing crime No. 104 of 2016. Police Station SSGC, Karachi. under section 15 of Gas Theft Control and Recovery Act, 2016.
2. Precisely the facts leading to the prosecution story as is envisaged in the FIR are that on the eventful day complainant who was posted as Assistant Engineer SSGC Karachi along with operational incharge and other staff as well as police party reached at Plot No. LSD-4/9 Zaffar Town Landhi Karachi where Hotel . Mashallah Frontier Hazara Hotel was running and theft of Gas was being committed through rubber pipe from service line directly and one Oven, 12 burners and 7.5 K.V Generator were on, which were disconnected through technical staff and one 14/15 feet long rubber pipe was seized, whereas the Generator and burners were fixed in the wall and could not be seized. One person namely Muhammad Muzamil son of Abdul Sattar was available at the Hotel and disclosed that he was servant there whereas the owner was Dildar son of Jehangir Khan. The complainant party searched the owner but could not find him out therefore inspection note was prepared and returned back at Police Station where FIR was lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is quite innocent and he has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives: per learned counsel applicant/accused has nothing to do with the alleged offence at all, as such neither he has any concern at all with the premises in question where the alleged meter is installed; per learned counsel applicant/accused is tenant of premises viz: LSD-4/9, while the alleged meter shown on the premises of Plot No.LS/3 where the alleged theft was committed; per learned counsel inspection note prepared at the spot and its memo. having no signature of complainant and PWs per learned counsel as far as tampering in service line are concerned, as such tampering has allegedly been done at the premises i.e. LS-4/9. while the applicant is tenant of premises viz: LS-3, hence such tampering in service line shall be determined at the time of trial; per learned counsel trial court while passing the impugned order did not consider the assumptions and presumptions of the matter and passed the order in hasty manner; per learned counsel nothing incriminating or any kind of element has been recovered from the spot to connect the applicant/accused with the alleged offence; per learned counsel applicant/accused is paying the bills to SSGC and he has paid last bill for the month of August, 2016; per learned counsel the punishment in the above crime is ten years, whereas the minimum punishment is five years and for bail the minimum punishment be considered and in this way the crime does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; lastly learned counsel for the applicant/accused prays for confirmation of ad interim pre arrest bail.
4. Learned special prosecutor SSGC vehemently opposed the confirmation of bail and contended that on the eventful day on search made by the complainant together with other officials, secured a rubber pipe 14/15 feet which was installed for the purposes of then in the hotel: per learned counsel applicant/accused did not paid any monthly current bill to the SSGC; per learned counsel the applicant/accused is putting SSGC on heavy losses; per learned counsel applicant/accused is continuously running hotel and is not paying charges of consumption of Gas thereof; per learned counsel the illegal consumption of SSGC has been proved while on the eventful day several photographs have been taken at the scene of occurrence which also proves that applicant/accused is using one Oven, 12 burners and 7.5 K.V Generator from one 14/15 feet long rubber pipe; per learned counsel applicant/accused is unable to produce valid SSGC bill for its consumption; per learned counsel the applicant/accused is not entitled for the confirmation of bail; per learned counsel the ad interim pre arrest hail granted to the applicant may be recalled.
5. Heard and perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that the applicant/accused is in the habit of theft and installation of illegal rubber pipe which is approximately 14/15 feet in length for running his hotel; further the paid bill produced by the applicant/accused in Court pertains to the month of September, 2016 which is for Plot No. LS/3 amounting to Rs.65980/- as otherwise the premises of Hotel is situated at Plot No.LSD- 4/9 nowhere current bill for consumption of SSGC has been produced with regard to the Plot No.LSD-4/9; applicant/accused fails to produce any Demand Note from the Department i.e. SSGC for installation of valid and legal gas connection meaning thereby applicant/accused did not applied before the Department for legal and valid gas connection. It is also an admitted fact that applicant/accused willingly and knowingly putting the government on heavy losses; the act so committed by the applicant/accused does not warrant any leniency for confirmation of bail. Apart from above it has also been proved by photographs with regard to the illegal consumption of gas; even otherwise servant of the hotel owner namely Muhammad Muzamil son of Abdul Sattar was available at the Hotel and disclosed that he was servant there whereas the owner was Dildar son of Jehangir Khan. On the other hand after grant of interim pre-arrest bail applicant/ accused appeared before the Investigation Officer and recorded his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. in which applicant/accused admitted that he has committed theft. This aspect of the case also leads for an opinion that applicant/accused being owner is bound under the law to pay the lawful charges with regard to the consumption of gas instead applicant/accused chosen to theft. In such circumstances I am not inclined to confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the ad interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant/accused vide order dated 28/10/2016 is hereby recalled. Applicant/accused is present in Court on ad interim pre arrest bail; he is taken into custody and is remanded to the Jail.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned trial Court for information.